Diplomacy AI Development

I think my biggest pet peeves are the frequent “impossibles” that come up. To me that should only occur if the AI literally cannot do it. Otherwise make it crazy expensive, but make it possible

 

I am very glad that this is being treated as an explicit design goal as opposed to a desirable side effect.

 

im very happy that someone is taking time to adjust diplomacy and as i wrote before.. last version feels much better.

i have some desires that annoying me pretty much.

1. As Stalker0 writes.. it´s the frequent impossibles, it´s like you can remove some questions/Demands because you know the answer is impossible (it could be a good deal)
and lately civ´s doesent want their capital back (think it´s a bug but anyway)

2. it should be possible to have friends (much better last version)

i like these changes.

3. This thing is disturbing me a lot, it´s the world congress Sanction.

i like the mechanic Sanction and it can possibly be more devastating and stronger BUT....

your friends or neutrals should not use it against you and think one more time before propose it..

what can they win/lose on it.. is it worth it??

the Sanction proposal can destroy the game diplomacy that you have built up during years..

 

Happy that you've posted this, lots of good stuff (I did find it annoying when the AI would ask for my Furs for their embassy every turn)

What I'd love to see personally is the AI stop making defensive pacts with their enemies. It makes no sense

 

Good list overall!

For 6) I think the AI should probably take into account the player's tactical superiority when evaluating the player's military strength (perhaps this is what you had in mind with the 'unless there is a good reason' bit). Maybe have the AI give the player's strength a bonus based on difficulty level when doing the evaluation which uses the assumption that the higher the difficulty the stronger the player's ability to use their military?

For instance, a warmonger AI choosing a target to conquer might be better off if he goes after a nearby AI of medium military strength than going after the player with a weaker military just because the player tends to still be tactically tougher. This of course has to be balanced around the fact that a player who neglects military needs to be punished for it. It's probably a tight rope to balance on...

For the 'not using information they shouldn't know' bit- can you expand on what that entails? Would that be something like not giving them vision of the whole map? Or not making them aware of an agreement to DoW between two other players? Or perhaps there are other examples?

I think I'd probably be ok with some cheating by the AI. Maybe not total vision, but giving the AI a little extra sight so they have more information when doing military operations could be ok, for instance. The human is capable of inferring things without direct information at times, though I'm having trouble thinking of very many examples.

 

Pretty sure the AI does mock you about having a weak army despite you don't. And claim that they'll get the Global Hegemony/other victories when there's no way they could.

 

True, and it is annoying. I don't think this is based on knowing anything about you though. They're kind of just saying 'this is the victory condition I have decided to aim for'.

Granted there's no need to be rude about, especially if those people are supposed to be your friends/allies lol.

 

If the AI dislikes you a lot they will send these kind of messages. You can either go 'whatever', or you can say 'you will pay for that' which may provoke them to war. That's how I remember it anyway. I'll see if I can get a screenshot of one.

That would be lovely!

 

You know? I'm not very proactive in diplomacy. I never seek the other civs to talk with them, just react to what the want to say to me. Only exception is when my cities want some luxury, I try to buy it.
If a civ has been nice to me and they ask for some support and I'm ok with it, then I admit it. Otherwise I tell them to go to hell.
But what I find most annoying is a civ asking me to join in a war, when I didn't put a thought into it before, so I'm not sure if it suits me.

When I have a resource that other civ wants, I am approached by that civs asking for the resource, and I am not sure if I should sell the resource to this civ or perhaps another civ is willing to pay more, or perhaps I should give it to another civ that is less threatening to me.

So, what I'd like to see changed is:

1. Delayed responses. If a civ offers me to go to war, let me think about it the next turn. Let me see the other neighbours, let me see if I have any chances against your enemy, let me think whether your friendship is convenient to me. I promise to give you an answer during my turn.
2. Remind me what my diplomatic options are. AI already comes to ask for Open Borders when it wants it. AI asks for luxuries or resources when they want it. But many times they don't come asking for a trade deal that they could accept if I proposed to them. If my friend is at war, and didn't asked for a joint war, maybe he will be glad that I send him a few units. Well then, come say hi, and remind me that if I were to gift a few units to them, it will help them greatly in their current wars, and they'll be grateful in the future.
If the AI could not found a religion, maybe it could come to remind us that sharing our religion with them will make them happy and will strengthen our ties.
3. If I'm not expending diplomats to get city state allies, then they should not hate me for stealing their city states. I would understand a requirement for a promise to not use diplomat on a certain city state, though.
4. Have it cristal clear how my actions affect opinions. Does this slightly piss them off, or will they hate me forever for this? Let me know how much your opinion of me is going to change if I choose this or that dialogue option, and how high your opinion of me currently is. Keep hidden your strategic approach if you like. It may be possible that we are best friends and you still want to backstab me when it suits you, but at least I will know that you didn't backstab me because you hate me.
5. Coalitions. Let me hold a banner with the requirement to defeat runaway civ X. Then let's see how many civs show up the 10th turn. Maybe some civs could ask for a payment, maybe they could ransom civ X for not joining the coalition.

 

One thing that might help is a tutorial mode, or something that explains where to find such information. Unfortunately civ has a lot of different things going on in it, and it's not always ituitive where to find the relevant information. The Civilopedia for example is relatively sparse on such things. That's part of why it's been so useful when someone explains what the code says so we can know how the game actually works.

 

Current game: Emperor/Epic/Standard size map. Songhai going Domination.

Talking about DoW I think the first thing to be addressed is how AIs evaluate human military power.

In this game:

_ started on center of my continent. Coastal start with Pearls (ok, this one is BIG, cannot pass =)). Korea my closest nightbour South, India in the East and Denmark to the North. After 80 turns or so Denmark and Korea as friends DOW me. It was the right decision: i was expanding quite fast with a lead on cities. Bad execution though. Korea tried to attack a walled city behind a mountain with 4 units losing them all and basically ending their attack there, Denmark went towards my recent unwalled founded city but with the bulk of my army (Warriors, Cbows) and just lost. They had barely the numbers but had massively underestimated both my tech level and my defense placement. In the end they feed me science and culture and money through a favourable peace treaty.

_ later in medieval: vassalized Korea as catapults came into the fight, Denmark stalled me thank his Berserkers in the North that did very well vs my Mandekalu cavalry. I had to fight three wars vs Bluetooth and finally got him deploying cannons and caravels.

_ India DoF me since ancient, Smart decision but his capital was really exposed. Vassalized him without deploying the fleet just a massive artillery barrage from 5 field cannons. Delhi went down in 4 turns.

Other continent something strange:

_ Zulu was the runaway vassalized Portugal, Netherland but left Egypt alone ??? DoW India same time as I did. Again good strategy decision but poorly executed: India managed to defend from his fleet easily then capitulated to me and war over for them.

_ Zulu liberated Netherland with 1 city left but did no DoW to finish the job. Strange. He kept Portugal as vassal.

_ Egypt was left alone with 5 cities (3 in mainland and 2 on isles) with lilke 14 Wonders and still wonder spamming and this was before I accepted a DP with them (smart). Why ? Well in 2 turns my whole fleet (28 Corvettes, 2 Ironclads, 8 Frigates) and my recently embarked eastern army will storm Egypt and Zulu managed to stay just helplessly dead in the mid of his ocean rift.

To be honest so far AIs played fairly well but need help to finalize his plan decision wise. Zulu should vassalized Egypt taking all wonders and giving me a bad time but I think he was frozen by my military might and still in the scoreboard his military is better than mine. Why ? Maybe he produced 70 Impis waiting for my invasion.

 

I accept that an AI that is offering my a luxury in its turn may not have it for trading next turn if it manages to trade it away to other civs. This won't be an issue.
What drives me nuts is having to decide which side I must join before I can carefully look at my neighbours stats. Right now, I am forced to involve myself in a war or risk to be rude to someone, blind eyed. I'm only asking for that AI to wait just to the very next turn for a response. Exploitable? In the sense that the unprepared player would commit fewer mistakes, yes, but I can't see other drawbacks.

You have a point. So these reminders should be not too invasive. I'm talking about diplomatic options that an experienced diplomatic player know and use, but inexperienced players miss. For example, we all know that a civ that wants to be friends with us comes offering a DoF. What they don't do is asking that we Denounce their enemies, and that's a very powerful diplomatic tool. When an ambassor knows of an intrigue, new diplomatic options open, but unaware players may miss the chance to share the intrigue.
Perhaps they could come and visit just to say that they'll love that the player share the religion with them, had they not founded theirs. Maybe (only maybe) a very friendly civ that opens a policy tree before the player and wants to stay friends could come and suggest the player that he picks the same policy, that the civ would be very pleased if the player chose the same.

Well, that's another way to achieve the same, but I fear that I would forget more often than not to unlock the button. I think it would be better that the AI gets angry just when the player uses the diplomatic action with the diplomat or the great diplomat on the city state in case, after being warned. If I am not actively trying to make an ally, AI should not be angry. AI could be concerned and could request that we make no further advancement, but fulfilling quests should not be considered as such.

I'll try to be more specific. You know that giving gifts to major civs increase their opinion, but we can't say how much gold we should give to them. If I am giving to them some gold and resources, I would like to see how much this would influence their opinion before making the offer. If I am going to share an intrigue, or insult them or denounce them, how much would this influence the opinion? I understand that a few modificators remain hidden so the AI can act mischievously, and I don't really need to see them all unless I play with Transparent Diplomacy, but at least I would like to know in advance how much my actions will piss them off.

I am talking about the Coalitions system in Europa Universalis 4. There, you raise a flag against another nation, and some other nations may join your side, depending on their opinion and their interests. You can even trade with some of those nations so they enter the coalition for a reward. Once the coalition stands a chance, the leader of the coalition is able to declare war. In that moment, all nations that are inside the coalition must declare war too or suffer a big reputation hit. This is the only way a few minor center european countries can stand a chance against a huge empire like the Ottomans, France or Russia.

We could adapt this system for Civ5. See how we can mostly ignore the lesser civs that have been beaten by some big contender? How would it be if they could join a coalition and work together towards some goals? Right now they can only use a defense pact, but that's self defense. I don't fear a vanquished civ that is only strong at defense. But 3-4 civs ganging up against the biggest empire with the goal of reconquering some of their former cities that would be something.

Anyways, if you think coalitions are too hard to implement, then drop it. The current method is not that bad.

 

I feel this too, very much. I think what Recursive is saying though is not that such a thing would be inherently exploitable but that it would be difficult to implement in a way that isn't exploitable.

Ideally for me I would be able to alt-tab out of the pop-up or something so I could check the situation and then give a response straight away. I don't know if that's even possible though.

 

I just want to say that diplomacy is in fact the best developed part of the vp, and I do not even try to comprehend what enormous amount fo work it taken to get vp to this point. Do not overwork yourself, because diplomacy is the most realistic and fun to do phase of the game right now. Especially do not give in to people requesting favorable treatment or requesting an AI that do not know where its interest lay. I feel that pushing anything right now could result in instability.

I disagree on this. There could be no unpredictable AI eithout being erratic. If the AI will behave according to its own best interest, it will be predictable for every player who is not half-witted. You most of the time know their capital, their cities, tech, policy count, army potential, their neighbours, their luxes, they strategics, their possible victory type they aim for, who the fear, who they can cooperate with, who is their next target, who is next targeting them etc. you cannot not make clear assement of how they would act to secure thie interests. I disagree though that predictability entails exploitability or passivness. You should have enough competitiors, and if you choose not-friendly attitude for them, they should turn neutral and deny you opportunities you would gain by cooperating with them.
Contrary I think deceitful AI should ask you if you would be a luxury several turns when it is already moving its troops against you , agree to deal, even offer better prices. It would be no erratic, but consistent lulling a player into its plan.

Footnote: how would you feel if declaration of friendship be changed into something more appriopriate? Like declaration of strategic coopeeration or just alliance. Beside, there is no friendship between states, nations, and corporations. There are only interests.

Moderator Action: Inappropriate content removed. Please do not use slurs in your posts in future. leif

 

Predictability vs Erratic is not about when the AI is making optimal decisions, that are "objectively better in every point".
Predictability vs Erratic is when the AI is making suboptimal decisions (either because of performance constrains, or role-play constrains). If those are too predictable, they become exploitable. If those are too erratic, they break the player immersion / trust that the AI will behave rationally.